Basically because during a relationship I let it become part of my identity. Younger me thought this was part of being a good partner, you know... giving everything. Turns out it's really not.
Nothing will make the next week any easier I'm sorry. In the coming weeks maybe some acceptance & commitment therapy. Loads of books on this subject, it will help you to think about your core values.
Maybe think about antidepressants if things are really bleak - but be aware that's a whole other journey.
Not necessarily. If (big if) there's enough users here then celebrities will come.
They'd want to form their own instance though, and for that reason it wouldnt have the glorious drama of /r/AMA - they would just delete any spicy stuff.
A lot of land which has been occupied by Aboriginals has already been "returned" under a process known as native title claims. Its an ongoing process and yes I support this process.
That said, I'm sure you're proposing the absurdity of somehow returning all of Australia, which is not possible and no one supports that.
Similarly, returning Israel's land is not reasonably possible and no one would support that excepting radicalised Palestinians.
Your question is based on the flawed premise that one or other combatant is "right". They're both wrong.
I couldn't care less about her claiming to be a Christian - it's meaningless really.
... but acting to undermine democracy is the antithesis of ethical behavior. I'm not just saying "it's bad", I mean that in whatever ethical paradigm you wish to use, acting against the interests of many millions of people for your own benefit is unethical.
She claims that her guilt arises through some sort of negligence, a failure to do the due diligence. If that's the way she wants to frame it then "egregious" doesn't begin to describe this failure. Bold claims require bold evidence. Any idiot could see that her client was spreading misinformation and she was complicit. "Knowingly" is barely relevant.
Goodness me. You're really stuck in this goodies vs baddies mentality.
You don't need to pick a side. You can condemn both sides for their shitty behavior.
Hamas are terrorists. They're untrustworthy. They're rapists and murderers.
Israel are causing a humanitarian crisis. The death of non-combatants on this scale is unacceptable.
Neither side are good guys.
Again, our disagreement centres around what level of force is appropriate to the threat.
Israel's citizens have been relatively safe from Hamas in recent years. Iron dome is very effective. All Israel needed to do to mitigate the threat was to maintain defensive positions. Of course this doesn't "erase Hamas", but it's just not possible to do that. You can't kill all the terrorists, you just create more.
As an attorney who is also a Christian, I take my responsibilities as a lawyer very seriously and I endeavor to be a person of sound moral and ethical character in all of my dealings,
I respect you, but you need to understand that you and I are going to disagree as to whether or not Israel's response is appropriate under the circumstances. We could go through this whole tête-à-tête again, and we will reduce our respective positions down to this same disagreement.
Where exactly did you get it from?
Don't be daft. We've both been reading articles based on the same announcements by the hamas-run gazan health ministry. We both know those numbers are overstated, but my point remains the same whether it's over-stated by 500, 1000, or 4000. It doesn't matter.
Why exactly do you think you need to throw big numbers here?
IDK, why did you include 100,000 in your response?
But when hamas fires missiles from some building that, for example, has 100,000 civillians in it, it is hamas who says “it is okay if all these people are killed”, not Israel.
They've fired something like 7,000 missiles in the last 2 weeks and achieved 11 casualties.
Maybe. It seems like the same parties pulling the strings in the Ukraine / Russia Conflict are the parties pulling the strings in the Israel / Gaza conflict.
I hadn't heard of this. Looks like they're using sugar to make that thick consistency. One recipe says 1tbsp coffee 1tbsp sugar 1tbsp hot water. That's a hard no from me.
There's still tracking. They're just streamlining the process and making it sound "extra private".
Personally, I find the entire concept of personalized ads offensive. Tell me that advertising pays for content and I'll punch a kitten.